This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: proposed PATCH: make watchpoints work correctly
- From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
- To: eliz at elta dot co dot il
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:50:59 -0400
- Subject: Re: proposed PATCH: make watchpoints work correctly
- References: <16084.56661.295275.544414@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com><1659-Wed28May2003225524+0300-eliz@elta.co.il><16085.7093.776115.863795@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com><5567-Thu29May2003062838+0300-eliz@elta.co.il><16086.9378.401730.788367@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com><9628-Mon02Jun2003072024+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:
>> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:54 -0400 From: Paul Koning
>> <pkoning@equallogic.com>
>>
Eli> Certainly, I understand that. I just was surprised that your
Eli> description of the problem was so different from my recollection
Eli> of how watchpoints work.
>> I just ran a small test case on the x86 Linux native build of gdb
>> 5.3, and the problem (step works as if it were stepi, falsely
>> reported as a watchpoint hit) occurs there as well -- just as
>> expected.
Eli> Thanks, I now see the problem.
Eli> I think your solution is correct, but I'd like to minimize the
Eli> number of calls to target_stopped_data_address (they might be
Eli> expensive). Since the code already does call that function that
Eli> elsewhere, could we just reuse the result of that call, or
Eli> rearrange your patch so that a single call would do?
Eli> Otherwise, I think your change should go in. Thanks.
Thanks. I'll look at the rearranging you suggested.
paul